Add Reply
Related Information to Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall...Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall... - Page 53 of 79
1. If so, then they are the ultimate in hypocrites, - Page 53 - Mormon Doctrine Studies - Posted: 10th Sep, 2006 - 12:01pm
Play Text RPG
- Location:
- International Discussions
- ➢
- ➢ Discuss
- ➢ General Religious Beliefs
- ➢ Mormon Doctrine Studies
Posts: 628 - Views: 35786
Mormon Doctrine on Plural Marriage - This Thread goes deep into all the angles of Mormon Polygamy, the requirement of Celestial Marriage which once encompassed Plural Marriage and the current standing of it with the modern Church. Also deeply analyzed is Joseph Smith's secret practise of it that latter lead to his death. Controversial Mormon Issue. Related Information to Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall...
Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall... - Page 53
I found this interpretation of the Manifesto in the FAIR LDS site. It's long so I would split it, but worth the reading. Please feel free to express your comments about it.
| QUOTE |
| President Woodruff clearly claimed that his action was inspired, and the product of revelation. Yet, what was his intent? Most Church writers seem to have not understood the circumstances under which the Manifesto was given, and have accepted that it was both the product of revelation (which it was) and intended, in 1890, to be implemented as literally written in all circumstances (which it likely was not). President Woodruff "struggled with the Lord" over what he ought to do. His action was "a necessity," "his duty," and "it was the right thing to do." President Woodruff's attitude toward what they had just written is seen in his words as he left the meeting: "We are like drowning men, catching at any straw that may be floating by that offers any relief!"229 Quite simply, the pressure against the Church, under a threadbare cloak of 'legality,' had become intolerable. The threat to the temples, even more than the threat to polygamous families, represented an assault on the most sacred aspects of LDS worship. Church leaders had clearly felt for a long time--with justification--that deceiving their enemies in regards to polygamy was the lesser of two evils. Thus, the revelation to President Woodruff, as he and his fellow apostles understood it, was not to cease polygamy entirely, but to publicly announce what the Church had already been doing (restricting permission for polygamous marriages). President Cannon explained this rationale after the Manifesto was presented in general conference: But the time has come when, in the providence of God, it seemed necessary that something should be done to meet the requirements of the country, to meet the demands that have been made upon us, and to save the people. President Woodruff and others of us have been appealed to hundreds of times, I might say;--I can say for myself, that I have been appealed to many scores of times to get out something and to announce something. Some of our leading brethren have said: "Inasmuch as we have ceased to give permission for plural marriages to be solemnized, why cannot we have the benefit of that? Why cannot we tell the world it, so as to have the benefit of it? Our enemies are alleging constantly that we still practice this in secret, and that we are dishonest and guilty of evasion. Now, if we have really put a stop to granting permissions to men to take more wives than one, why should not the world know it and we have the advantage of it?" These remarks have been made to us repeatedly. But at no time has the Spirit seemed to indicate that this should be done. We have waited for the Lord to move in the matter...230 The revelation to President Woodruff also extended the degree of deception which was permissible to avoid the Church's destruction. It was his duty to make a formal statement which he knew to be false in some particulars. Later, Joseph F. Smith clearly understood the Manifesto in this light: "he regarded the document as inspired under the circumstances in which the U.S. government placed the Church...'But he did not believe it to be an emphatic revelation from God abolishing plural marriage.'"231 President Woodruff released the Manifesto with the approval of only [b]three of the apostles. At a meeting after its publication, seven of nine apostles supported the measure. Of the supporters, four made it clear they supported such a statement only within the United States. 232 This view of the Manifesto as a revealed tactic to relieve pressure on the Church is not a common one among Church members today. Yet, a review of the circumstances under which it was received, and some fundamental principles of Church government, makes this interpretation the most sensible one. The Doctrine and Covenants clearly indicates that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are of equal authority233 and that every decision should be done in unanimity234 in order to make such decisions binding upon the Church: to make them "official," as it were. Clearly, President Woodruff did not follow this practice--which would be very strange if he expected the Manifesto to be read as a formal revelation insisting that all polygamous practices immediately cease: only three of the apostles even saw the Manifesto prior to its publication. And, following its publication, there was not unanimity as to what the Manifesto required. |
LDS_forever: Now, knowing this...knowing that there was not unanimity to have the Manifesto bind upon the Saints, how come after all these years we have this document canonized in our Scriptures?
Edited: LDS_forever on 8th Sep, 2006 - 12:30pmSponsored Links:
Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural
Part II
| QUOTE |
| But, President Woodruff did not frame the matter in this way: rather, it was a "duty" on his part, which the Lord required. Even the wording of the Manifesto reflects this--it does not speak of "we the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve," but simply of Wilford Woodruff in the first person singular. The wording is careful and precise: "I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise... And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land."235 Thus, President Woodruff announces a personal course of action, but does not commit other general authorities or the Church--he even issues "advice," rather than a "command" or "instruction." No other signatures or authorities are given, other than his own. A useful comparison can be made with Official Declaration 2, which follows the prescribed pattern for Church government: ...the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball...[who] has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation...he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.236 The difference between this and the Manifesto is striking. The Manifesto was issued in a manner which could not have been binding upon the Church at the time. Fortunately, some in the U.S. government were unaware of such protocols, not having taken the time to adequately understand or sympathize with the Mormons' religion. More informed observers, such as the hostile Salt Lake Tribune, were not fooled, and U.S. President Harrison "said Woodruff's choice of words undercut their persuasiveness."237 As for the Manifesto, the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve voted on 2 October 1890 to sustain President Woodruff's action. That is, under my reading, they supported his tactic of essentially telling the government what it wanted to hear, and complying with the law insofar as their consciences would allow. Even at this meeting their intent was clear, since they debated whether the Church as a whole should sustain the Manifesto, since "some felt that the assent of the Presidency and Twelve to the matter was sufficient without committing the people by their votes to a policy which they might in the future wish to discard."238 It is evident that these united quorums did not consider the Manifesto to be a revelation forbidding all plural marriage in 1890: for, why would they then contemplate the Church wanting to "disregard" it? Rather, they supported the decision to hide the full truth from their enemies because they lacked other options which would enable them to keep their higher duty to their faith. The Manifesto announced what had being going on privately already (the severe restrictions on plural marriage) but hid the fact that Church leaders might grant exceptions. Perhaps most convincingly, an editorial in the Church's Deseret News responded to the government's Utah Commission, which had argued that President Woodruff needed to "have a revelation suspending polygamy." The editorial advised that "[w]hen President Woodruff receives anything from a Divine source for the Church over which he presides he will be sure to deliver the message."239 This was written five days after the publication of the Manifesto. It seems inescapable that President Woodruff considered his action inspired and divinely directed; however, he and the Church did not believe that God had, by the Manifesto, told them to cease all plural marriage. Furthermore, President Cannon spoke just over a week later and indicated that President Woodruff's writing of the Manifesto had been done "under the influence of the 'Spirit'" and promised that "when God speaks and...makes known His mind and will, I hope that I and all Latter-day Saints will bow in submission to it."240 Thus, the Manifesto was considered to be a divinely mandated and inspired step (to avoid government action) but its content was not viewed as an absolute, binding command to completely dispense with plural marriage, unless the leadership of the Church should so receive it by revelation. Up to this point, they had not. |
LDS_forever: I never thought it that way. It seems to me that we can consider the Manifesto "inspired" somehow or a "desesperate" way to save the Church but the fact that Pres. Woodruff wrote it in formal personal and without no Church name on it , makes it just a "counsel" to the Saints, no much different to the counsels the Prophet gives to the Saints nowdays.
Edited: LDS_forever on 8th Sep, 2006 - 12:35pmPlural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall... Studies Doctrine Mormon
Part III
| QUOTE |
| President Woodruff's later statements to the Saints about the Manifesto are instructive, when read in this light. I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write.241 President Woodruff saw the consequences of inaction--the Lord therefore "commanded [him] to do what [he] did do." He was unclear about what he should do (despite all the "studying it out") until revelation arrived, and he then said what the Lord told him to say.242 Now I will tell you what was manifested to me and what the Son of God performed in this thing... All these things would have come to pass, as God Almighty lives, had not that Manifesto been given. Therefore, the Son of God felt disposed to have that thing presented to the Church and to the world for purposes in his own mind. The Lord had decreed the establishment of Zion. He had decreed the finishing of this temple. He had decreed that the salvation of the living and the dead should be given in these valleys of the mountains. And Almighty God decreed that the Devil should not thwart it. If you can understand that, that is a key to it.243 President Woodruff again attributes the Manifesto to divine revelation. But, his wording is instructive: "the Son of God felt disposed to have [the Manifesto] presented to the Church and the world for purposes in his own mind." The purpose was not, at the time, to completely halt polygamy, but to allow the Church to continue its work of salvation for the living and the dead. "[T]he Devil should not thwart it," President Woodruff points out, "If you can understand that, that is a key to it." In an oblique--but remarkably clear--way, President Woodruff gives the Saints and us a window into his moral reasoning. President Woodruff was likely aware that government would be misled by the Manifesto, but he considered the attacks on the Church to be motivated by demonic influence. If one can understand that there is a higher duty than obeying secular law or being forthright with secular rulers with corrupt motives, then such understanding is a key to understanding the decision and the reasons behind it. The Manifesto was issued only when all other avenues had been exhausted, and it was--he reported--sanctioned by God: [President Woodruff said he] believed he would have lived to have witnessed the hand of the government extended to crush us; but the Lord did not intend that Zion should be crushed, and He averted the blow by inspiring me to write and issue the manifesto, and it certainly has had the effect of doing it so far.244 George Q. Cannon made it clear that the Church still felt somewhat trapped between duties to God and duties to political authority: But the nation has interposed and said, "Stop," and we shall bow in submission, leaving the consequences with God. We shall do the best we can; but when it comes in contact with constituted authorities, and the highest tribunals in the land say "Stop," there is no other course for Latter-day Saints, in accordance with the revelations that God has given to us telling us to respect constituted authority, than to bow in submission thereto and leave the consequences with the Lord.245 The Manifesto thus strove to walk this difficult line--conceding sufficient to "constitutional authority" to prevent the Church's destruction, maintaining the restrictions on plural marriage, and refraining from teaching the doctrine. Yet, significantly President Cannon says that the Saints "shall do the best we can." That is, they will continue to practice their faith to the extent possible without threatening the Church's existence. This would later include a limited continuation of plural marriage. Thus, the Church leaders' united understanding was that the Manifesto was a revelation. However, they did not understand it as universally forbidding all plural marriage at that time, though for the Church's survival it was necessary that the government interpret it so. The leaders and Saints would understand the meaning and application of the Manifesto differently in time. An altered understanding--via revelation--of a previous revelation is not unprecedented: Jesus commanded the apostles to "teach all nations," but the apostles continued to interpret this command in a more limited way until later revelation expanded the preaching of the Christian gospel beyond those who had first embraced the rites of Judaism.246 A modern example involves the Word of Wisdom, which was not declared to be universally binding for more than a century, though the revelation in Section 89 did not "change."247 The alert reader will note that the published version of the Manifesto--found in the Doctrine and Covenants' Official Declaration 1--indicates that the sustaining vote for the Manifesto was "unanimous." It is fair to ask why this is so, given that the understanding of the Manifesto was not unanimous among Church members then, or for years afterward. The sustaining vote in conference was called because of continued government pressure from the U.S. Secretary of the Interior.248 Of course, there is enormous presumption in the government's belief that it could "compel" a certain interpretation of revelation by insisting upon a Church procedure. Their biases about revelation--that it was merely a device of expedience which permitted believers to polygamy for carnal motives--made them either unable to understand the bind into which they placed the Saints, or unconcerned about the consequences of doing so intentionally. The members' vote on the Manifesto, wrote one apostle, was "carried by a weak voice, but seemingly unanimous,"249 and the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve were not unanimous in believing that the Manifesto was intended to signal the definite end of polygamy--it was, however, important for the Church's survival that it appear this way to their persecutors. A Church vote could not change this, though all American politicians doubtless did not appreciate the fact. Later, a secretary to the First Presidency who was asked if the Manifesto was "just a gesture" replied, "Marvelous that you can see so far."250 The problem for leaders of the Church was that they could not publicly explain the rationale behind the Manifesto without again threatening the Church's existence. The Manifesto was thus presented for a sustaining vote, but the leaders could not explain their complete understanding of what it then required. Members had to rely on their own revelatory gifts when asked to vote, and the conference sustained the Manifesto. It is not clear how many members did so with a full understanding of how the General Authorities then understood the revelation. The sustaining indicated, at the least, their conviction that they were being led aright by prophets of God. At least one member voted against the Manifesto because he considered it a political tactic with no revelatory basis.251 Many members also abstained from voting; it is difficult to be certain why. They may have had no revelatory insight into the revelation's truth or falsehood. Conscience may have prevented them from affirming something about which they had no witness, but their support for their leaders as prophets prevented them from opposing the united actions of the presiding quorums. Conflicting emotions also played a role. This seems to have been the position of B.H. Roberts, who wrote movingly of the struggle he had in accepting a witness of the Manifesto's truth: "I [first] read [the Manifesto] with astonishment. But no sooner had I read them, than like a flash of light all through my soul the spirit said--"That is all right," so it passed...[but] the more I thought of it the less I liked it...during the Conference I saw that movements were on foot to have the whole people support it[,] a proceeding I viewed with alarm. When the crisis came I felt heart-broken but remained silent. It seemed to me to be the awfulest moment in my life, my arm was like lead when the motion was put; I could not vote for it, and did not... While, as I was saying, this matter continued a trial to me through the year 1891, and plagued me much, but I said but little about it; and by and by I began to remember the flash of light that came to me when first I heard of it, and at last my feelings became reconciled to it. Perhaps I had transgressed in pushing from me the first testimony I received in relation to it, and allowing my own prejudices, and my own short-sighted, human reason to stand against the inspiration of God and the testimony it bore that the Manifesto was alright. When this fact began to dawn on my mind I repented of my wrong and courted most earnestly the spirit of God for a testimony and gradually it came.252 |
Edited: LDS_forever on 8th Sep, 2006 - 12:44pmPage 53 Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural
From Part II: LDS_forever: If this theory is true, it must have been really difficult for some members to understand what Pres. Woodruff and the other leaders were trying to do. Is it possible that this can be a reason for the Church nowdays to stop any talk concerning Plural Marriage?
Part IV
| QUOTE |
| For the Manifesto to succeed in the purpose for which it was revealed, it was necessary that the government believe that the Church would be bound by it and interpret it as the government wished. Publications of the Manifesto at the time therefore required such a statement to mollify Washington. The revelation was accepted by the Church. However, had the Church mentioned abstainers or dissenters, this would be seized on by eastern enemies to show that "the Mormon fanatics" would never abandon polygamy, even if their leaders told them to do so. This would only fuel efforts to use political and military power to crush the Church. On the other hand, if non-supporters of the revelation were named by the Church, this could well have subjected them to continued government persecution. I suspect that the wording in present editions of the Doctrine and Covenants is simply a hold-over from the initial publications which downplayed any misgivings which some had. Many modern members and leaders are likely not even familiar with the circumstances surrounding the Manifesto, and so simply take the phrasing of former years at face value. The sentiment of the statement is, however, correct as it applies to the current Church. Church leaders are now abundantly and unanimously clear that no polygamous marriages are to be solemnized. Those who violate this have been excommunicated. The scripture's account of a unanimous sustaining vote does effectively communicate to a modern reader--even if unfamiliar with the complex history behind it--that the plain meaning of the Manifesto is current Church policy. President Woodruff does not seem to have intended that the Manifesto should prevent current polygamists from living with or supporting their wives--its wording was even changed prior to publication to avoid this impression.253 Yet, the government again insisted, refusing to return the Church's properties otherwise, and so a public announcement was made which forbade cohabitation with pre-Manifesto spouses.254 Most Church members and leaders continued, however, to cohabitate255--which reinforced (and reinforces) the perception that some aspects of the Manifesto were issued for expediency's sake, and not as a binding commandment from the Lord. It was to satisfy the world; it was not to compel the Saints to violate their covenants and abandon their families. In 1891, President Woodruff was compelled to testify before the Master in Chancery. He told them what they wanted to hear--that cohabitation was forbidden on pain of excommunication256--and again indicated privately that his duty to the Church and God was a higher loyalty: [he said] "that he was placed in such a position on the witness stand that he could not answer other than he did; yet any man who deserts and neglects his wives or children because of the Manifesto, should be handled on his fellowship." He then encouraged the assembled General Authorities to agree that men must try to avoid being arrested or convicted for unlawful cohabitation "and yet they must not break their covenants with their wives."257 We note again that the Church and its members were in an impossible position--the government showed no concern for the women and children who would be left without support if government policies were obeyed. Members and leaders again had agonizing choices to make, in which all their moral duties simply could not be honored. Joseph F. Smith wrote to a member who faced just this dilemma, "The whole thing in a nut shell is this, you should keep your covenants with your family and you should also not violate the law. Now if you can comprehend it--you will grasp the situation."258 The situation--which critics and many modern members have not grasped--is that it was impossible to do both. A choice had to be made, the Saints chose whatever was most important, and most seem to have chosen support for families over being straightforward with the government. |
LDS_forever: How can you keep your covenants with your family without breaking the law? What a dilemma! I suppose they had no choice but to do in hiding.
https://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Proph...ion.html#head02
Edited: LDS_forever on 8th Sep, 2006 - 12:47pm
Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural
| QUOTE (FAIR LDS quote) |
| ...to be implemented as literally written in all circumstances (which it likely was not |
Well the Church today seems to take literally and MOST Members also see Plural Marriage as something almost a kin to evil - a giant mistake of the past that "is behind us now" according to Pres. Hinckley.
However, this does bring up a point now that actually goes along with my "What If" scenario. We see the threat of the US on the Church as something of the past, BUT suppose that threat still exists? Suppose there are those so zealot against the Church that they are trying to tie the FLDS and us together to make the Church look bad? Under these circumstances you can easily see why the Church is still in a mode of 'protecting' itself and cannot yet reveal or teach Plural Doctrine of any kind.
| QUOTE |
| He then encouraged the assembled General Authorities to agree that men must try to avoid being arrested or convicted for unlawful cohabitation "and yet they must not break their covenants with their wives." |
This is basically saying that all should carry on, but not be caught. However, one can clearly see why new marriages were not encouraged... this would be difficult to enforce or even encourage.
In the end I now see the Manifesto as inspired revelation meant to appease the US Government and nothing more, HOWEVER, I feel we mistake if we think it does not continue to appease the US Government even today.
I also believe Woodruff's lie can be taken in context of the lie Abraham made with Pharaoh in saying that his wife was his sister. All of this is interesting and makes me wish I could be in close quarters with some of the Brethren so we could speak about this without hinderance.
Good research LDS.
Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall...
JB said:
| QUOTE |
| Under these circumstances you can easily see why the Church is still in a mode of 'protecting' itself and cannot yet reveal or teach Plural Doctrine of any kind. |
Even though is a nice question/theory that I also added on my comments, I do not think it is the reason for it. I believe a lot of our leaders are ashamed of this doctrine, others are too worried about what the world would think about the "Mormons" and the Polygamy issue again. You see, it is "nice" and "comfortable" NOT to have or teach Plural Marriage because it means to open a can of worms, why to leave the comfort zone?
I have another question, President Woodruff said in the same Manifesto:
| QUOTE |
| "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty." |
Beautiful now he said that to bring some sort of comfort to the Saints that the Lord will never permit him to lead the Church astray, yet he and other leaders take new plural wives after the Manifesto for long years. How is that possible? So if he was somehow deceiving the US government about discontinuing polygamy, and by consequence the members who did not know his intentions of appeasing the government, what about the statement that he would never lead the people astray?
Plural Marriage That Day Women Shall... - Page 53
It is just occurred to me to ask / wonder about these points:
1. Could it be that some of the current high level Brethren have taken Plural Wives in secrecy, I mean absolute secrecy as was demonstrated by early Brethren? This doing so they may fulfill all obligations? Maybe it is done only at the spiritual level and nothing more to avoid anything?
2. Seeing that the Manifesto was only meant to be a defensive document, were Plural Marriage to be legalized would the Church revert back to it? We have said no, but doctrinally we cannot say "no". Can any of you brave souls that visit the temple find someone that can discuss this?
| Offtopic but, What is the current status of legalizing gay marriage? |
3. Since Plural Marriage is not done by legal means why didn't the Church operate as the Muslims do? I do wonder if this meant that if there were a Muslim population out west if the US would have attack them just the same on those grounds. Notice that Muslims are NOT being persecuted for this and everyone knows they have many wives.
Plural Marriage That Day Women Shall... Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 53
1. If so, then they are the ultimate in hypocrites, providing for themselves an opportunity to enter the Celestial Kingdom, and denying it for the rest of the Church. Wouldn't this, along with the incredible amount of profit taking due to Church position amount to terrible Priestcraft?
2. I think we have already discussed this, but here goes. Not a chance. We have over 70 years invested in convincing the Saints that Plural Marriage is worse than adultery. Apostles such as Bruce R. McConkie have stated this specifically. We have had many leaders, including "official" spokesmen, telling the Church, and the World, that plural marriage was primarily an "expedient" thing, to provide for women who were widowed while crossing the plains. The rest of the time, they have been telling us that it was "only to rise up a righteous generation", referring to the ONLY verse in the Book of Mormon that deals with this subject.
We also have 50 to 70 years of leadership trying to convince us that the Journal of Discourses is completely unreliable, so that nobody can use it as a credible source to show that Plural Marriage really is a Law, which is required for Celestial Glory. As a side note, this impeachment of the Journal of Discourses helped them to destroy the Adam-God doctrine, the ideas that the True Order of Prayer is give for the common people to learn the mysteries of Godliness, and to deny that we should even THINK of studying such mysteries.
It seems to me that we have had the same amount of time for the leadership to convince the Saints that while personal revelation is "vital", it is only acceptable if it completely falls in line with what the "official" stance is of the Church. Anyone who publishes "unauthorized" dreams, visions, or understandings has faced scorn and even possible excommunication. Thus, when my cousin tells me that she has received personal revelation that she is supposed to be a plural wife, she does so knowing that the Church would excommunicate her (if it hadn't already excommunicated her whole family while she was a little child).
No, we are so strongly invested in being the most anti-polygamy group in the nation that it will require something truly on the order of Old Testament style convincing to get the "Church" to even consider it. (Anyone remember the story of Elijah with the priests of Baal?)
3. For a while, the Church DID operate like the Muslims do. However, certain leaders (who I have discussed before) took it upon themselves to destroy anyone who attempted to do so, even if it included former friends and Apostles. We were, and are, our own worst enemies on this subject.
Besides, Muslims are a highly protected minority in the US, and have been for decades.
TOPIC: Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall...